Pages

November 12, 2008

Will Red Sox Remove Names From Road Jerseys?

Dan LaMothe -- the Red Sox Monster -- has linked to a Flickr page that shows a possible new design for Boston's 2009 road uniform. And one of the shirt backs has no last name!

I have been hoping for years that the team would come to its senses and remove the last names from players' shirts. There were few things more silly looking than "Garciaparra" shaped like a cluttered rainbow ranging from armpit to armpit. (And why in f*'s name do the Red Sox sell #9 shirts with "Williams" on the back? He never wore anything like that.)

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that the Yankees are currently the only team to have no names on either their home or road uniforms. UniWatch's Paul Lukas says the Mets tried the no-name approach in 1999, but that lasted only one season. The Giants were nameless for a long time, but have surrendered. The Dodgers removed names in 2002, but they have since returned. (Strange that all four of these teams are or were New York-based.)

According to Jere, the Red Sox added names to the back of their road jerseys in 1989. ... 1989 -- that is not a tradition! OFF WITH THE NAMES!

I obviously am outvoted here, but I like the names on the jerseys! It doesn't matter so much for me on the Sox because I recognize all of them, but when we play OTHER teams, I like to know who the players are. I assume non-Sox fans feel the same way when their team plays the Red Sox.

It doesn't matter so much for me on the Sox because I recognize all of them, but when we play OTHER teams, I like to know who the players are. I assume non-Sox fans feel the same way when their team plays the Red Sox.

But can you really read them that well on TV? I usually need the announcers to tell me who the players that I don't recognize are, anyway.

Personally I like the name and the last thing I want to do is start another curse, we've won 2 championships with the names on. Lets leave it that way. If they go with the new jerseys though, please no piping its horrendous!!

L-girl - I almost always agree with you, but not this time. I'm not a baseball purist and I think names are a good thing. It really helped me when I was new to game to learn names. If I just referred to someone as "that pitcher, you know, number 49" I don't think I would have become as comfortable with the team as quickly as I did. I didn't have a parent, sibling, or friend to help me learn the team, so the names really helped. And the having the names of the other team was just as important! I understand your argument, but I don't agree.

I really wasn't trying to present an argument for no names. It's just my opinion, which as I said, I know is in the minority.

I had no one to help me learn baseball either. And I grew up rooting for a team with no names on any jerseys. And I learned the names, and it didn't make a bit of difference. Just like the many generations of fans who came before me.

As far as being a purist, I don't think there is such a thing.

Every so-called purist defines their stance from their own generation, what they were used to.

No one really wants to go back to baseball's roots. Which roots? The game has been changing since the day it was invented.

I do like tradition, and I do like things very simple, visually. To me there is something so simple and beautiful about a uniform with only a number.

Is that link to the jerseys anything more than some guy making up jerseys he'd like to see? If the Red Sox released them, why would one have a name and one not have a name? I see no indication that this is anything other than somebody drawing pictures.

Meanwhile, the Orioles are returning to having "Baltimore" on their road unis. They've also added a crazy Maryland flag patch and altered the look of the bird slightly. There's a photo gallery at the O's site. (I assume they left the names on the back.)

While I'm indifferent on the matter, removing the names would be nice. My only advice to the Sox: don't go back to those red hats with the @*#$ing pullovers they used between 1975 and 1978 - yuck! Actually, I liked the road unis they used in the 1960s and from 1979 through 1989 - good look!

We won 5 championships with absolutely nothing on the back.

And one of those championships before the team was officially named the Red Sox.

What always made sense to me was to have just numbers for the home uniforms with the team logo or team name on the front. For the away uniforms it made sense to me to have names on the back and have the name of the city on the front.

I wouldn't be heartbroken either way. I grew up with the current uniforms, so this is what I'm most used to.

What always made sense to me was to have just numbers for the home uniforms with the team logo or team name on the front. For the away uniforms it made sense to me to have names on the back and have the name of the city on the front.

I looked for evidence that it's a real thing and I found nothing. His other unis were Bruins ones that were pretty sloppily done compared to the Sox ones. Also, one of his notes says something about names on back "if needed." I don't think this is anything from the team, just something someone does for fun.

I wouldn't mind if they took off the names, but I don't find them annoying. Some names do indeed look out of place, like Garciaparra, Matsuzaka, and Malphabet. I'm very content with what they're doing now: names on away, no names on home.

If some fans need the names on the back to identify players, that's fine too. Whatever helps the game. Personally, if I don't know a player's name, I immediately look it up on the computer or phone.